Life has been interesting over the last few weeks. We've been busy selling and sifting through belongings asking do we need this? Is this useful? If so, why? We've taken a long hard look at what's important to us in terms of belongings - and the big answer is, not a lot! Most of the furniture has gone, or is on the way out, with the exception of a few key items (fridge, movie set up etc). All the music has been ripped to mp3 and sold, all my important notes are in the process of being scanned to pdf and the paper recycled. Heaps of clothes and linen have been donated. Some of our personal things, such as paintings, will remain however the majority will go. And the best thing is, what a liberating feeling! We've essentially decommissioned 4 rooms of the house and it feels great :)
Maybe the most important thing is to remember? That doesn't take up any space!
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Monday, May 31, 2010
*Sob*
I can handle selling furniture. And sorting through knick-knacks. Organising books to sell? That's like selling old friends :( Goodbye sweet prince, I read you well...
The Rose
The Rose
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Well, it has taken 32 years to wake up to the fact that NZ is probably not for me. I have been quiet for the last month or two as everything that seems to come to mind is an outpouring of bile on one topic or another. Most recently, I have been trying to figure out what to do with my job as my illustrious employer seems hell bent on chasing rainbows and ripping the guts out of the organisation. The whole problem had a spotlight put on it lately as in the not too distant future my better half is also going to have to make the big decision of whether to stay or go.
Many scenarios were thrown around as to what to do. I even approached the usual suspects to see if we could put together a beneficial move to Wellington, but it would seem this can’t be done. Over the ditch it looks to be then. So for my 32nd birthday it looks as though my primary job will be to get a tire for my beloved bike and try and find a buyer. For god’s sake NZ, would it really kill you to try and see the bigger picture? Ignorant fools following processes they can’t or won’t comprehend will be the death of this place....
The Dragon
Many scenarios were thrown around as to what to do. I even approached the usual suspects to see if we could put together a beneficial move to Wellington, but it would seem this can’t be done. Over the ditch it looks to be then. So for my 32nd birthday it looks as though my primary job will be to get a tire for my beloved bike and try and find a buyer. For god’s sake NZ, would it really kill you to try and see the bigger picture? Ignorant fools following processes they can’t or won’t comprehend will be the death of this place....
The Dragon
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Procrastination, thy name is not woman
Haha - I have been conquering my "to do" list...writing presentations, updating my CV, reviewing work and study stuff. Go me :)
I am giving myself an internet pat on the back.
The Rose
I am giving myself an internet pat on the back.
The Rose
Monday, April 26, 2010
Resource allocation
Yesterday I was reading the National Geographic April 2010 edition, a special edition entitled "Water, our thirsty world".
Most of you probably think that I couldn't give a toss about the environment. Yep, I like fast cars, nice toys and try to enjoy some of the money I earn by seeing the world. You probably don't know that we try to grow our own veges, recycle as much as possible, only use energy saver light bulbs, try to limit the numbers of trips into town (well, petrol is pricey!), turn off electrical devices, only heat key areas in winter and try not to waste water. So there.
The NG issue focused on the global availability of water and how water is currently managed. The more I read, the more it seemed to be missing the key issue. Surely the reason we have these shortages and changes is due to humans - the impact of human expansion, growth, development and modern medicine keeping everyone alive. So if we're happy to ration all other resources - water, food, fuel - why is it so terrible to discuss rationing of humans?
Before all the mummsies and daddsies reach for the phone and call the police, I'm not talking eugenics. I'm talking practicality. The world's population currently sits at around 6,817,100,000. China and India both have well over 1 billion people each. At current birth/death rates, the world population is expected to reach about 9 billion between 2040 and 2050. That's a lot of people. If birth rates don't change and if resources continue to decline, how (on Earth) can this population be supported?
Politicians and the general public talk so blithely about global warming and climate change yet do not appear to have the capacity to consider ways apart from "protocols" or "taxes" as methods of change. Why not look at addressing the core issue? Why not discuss limits such as every person can only have 1 child each? That means two people together could have two children. Let those who choose not to have children be rewarded by being able to "sell" their allocation. Manage population growth! I don't care who breeds with whom, just how many they have.
Wait, I can hear the arguments already. Compulsory sterilisation - gasp! Only after you've had (or traded) your allocation. Maybe it would help people to use contraception - if you use your allocation up at age 16, maybe you'll regret it at 26. Surely it's an environmental argument that's worth having.
My sister-in-law made a "humourous" post on Facebook today over an "article" (no doubt sponsored by Nappy Brain United) allegedly recommending that people without children shouldn't receive a pension. Maybe the nappy brains out there should think about the population and the damage they are doing to the world before they make comments about those who choose not to have children.
The Rose
Most of you probably think that I couldn't give a toss about the environment. Yep, I like fast cars, nice toys and try to enjoy some of the money I earn by seeing the world. You probably don't know that we try to grow our own veges, recycle as much as possible, only use energy saver light bulbs, try to limit the numbers of trips into town (well, petrol is pricey!), turn off electrical devices, only heat key areas in winter and try not to waste water. So there.
The NG issue focused on the global availability of water and how water is currently managed. The more I read, the more it seemed to be missing the key issue. Surely the reason we have these shortages and changes is due to humans - the impact of human expansion, growth, development and modern medicine keeping everyone alive. So if we're happy to ration all other resources - water, food, fuel - why is it so terrible to discuss rationing of humans?
Before all the mummsies and daddsies reach for the phone and call the police, I'm not talking eugenics. I'm talking practicality. The world's population currently sits at around 6,817,100,000. China and India both have well over 1 billion people each. At current birth/death rates, the world population is expected to reach about 9 billion between 2040 and 2050. That's a lot of people. If birth rates don't change and if resources continue to decline, how (on Earth) can this population be supported?
Politicians and the general public talk so blithely about global warming and climate change yet do not appear to have the capacity to consider ways apart from "protocols" or "taxes" as methods of change. Why not look at addressing the core issue? Why not discuss limits such as every person can only have 1 child each? That means two people together could have two children. Let those who choose not to have children be rewarded by being able to "sell" their allocation. Manage population growth! I don't care who breeds with whom, just how many they have.
Wait, I can hear the arguments already. Compulsory sterilisation - gasp! Only after you've had (or traded) your allocation. Maybe it would help people to use contraception - if you use your allocation up at age 16, maybe you'll regret it at 26. Surely it's an environmental argument that's worth having.
My sister-in-law made a "humourous" post on Facebook today over an "article" (no doubt sponsored by Nappy Brain United) allegedly recommending that people without children shouldn't receive a pension. Maybe the nappy brains out there should think about the population and the damage they are doing to the world before they make comments about those who choose not to have children.
The Rose
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
It is a truth universally acknowledged...
That when one part of your life is going badly, all the rest of it goes badly as well.
As a kid you wondered why parents got stressed - what is there to worry about? Now I understand worry lines and grey hairs.
Arrgghhh...acopic! And it's only Tuesday.
The Rose
As a kid you wondered why parents got stressed - what is there to worry about? Now I understand worry lines and grey hairs.
Arrgghhh...acopic! And it's only Tuesday.
The Rose
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
More movies
Hmmmmm. Just bought and watched Watchmen for a mighty $15.
I freely confess that in my opinion, despite all efforts from the media and some family members, books with pictures are either a) picture books for kiddies or b) comics. Graphic novels do not exist. So I haven't "read" the "book".
Gosh, this movie really tries hard doesn't it? Plot is tricky to describe - bunch of guys, some clever/super abilities, decided in the 40's to don spandex (if you're male) or vinyl (if you're a girlie) and masks as that means you can't be prosecuted for breaking the law "bringin' down them thar villains".
The film is loooonnnnggggg for such a thin plot - 2hrs 35mins. Lots of CGI to pad out the story, mostly by having a damaged physicist glow blue, although there is one character (Rorschach) whose face mask moves around as an ink blot which personally I like.
Can't even be too bothered going through the story - bunch of guys, fight other guys, some cool moments, many bad moments including a bloody awful sex scene, then resolution that tries to be tricky. With more spandex.
Once again, another doubtful rendition of a comic book story/villain/plot that misses the mark. I would have been disappointed to have watched this on the big screen.
Maybe I am just immune to the genre however this scores a yawning 4/10. I'm sure it would be much better with hallucinogenic influences.
The Rose
Addendum - ah, the mystery is solved. This film is directed by the same moron who did 300, one of the worst movies I have ever had to endure.TR
I freely confess that in my opinion, despite all efforts from the media and some family members, books with pictures are either a) picture books for kiddies or b) comics. Graphic novels do not exist. So I haven't "read" the "book".
Gosh, this movie really tries hard doesn't it? Plot is tricky to describe - bunch of guys, some clever/super abilities, decided in the 40's to don spandex (if you're male) or vinyl (if you're a girlie) and masks as that means you can't be prosecuted for breaking the law "bringin' down them thar villains".
The film is loooonnnnggggg for such a thin plot - 2hrs 35mins. Lots of CGI to pad out the story, mostly by having a damaged physicist glow blue, although there is one character (Rorschach) whose face mask moves around as an ink blot which personally I like.
Can't even be too bothered going through the story - bunch of guys, fight other guys, some cool moments, many bad moments including a bloody awful sex scene, then resolution that tries to be tricky. With more spandex.
Once again, another doubtful rendition of a comic book story/villain/plot that misses the mark. I would have been disappointed to have watched this on the big screen.
Maybe I am just immune to the genre however this scores a yawning 4/10. I'm sure it would be much better with hallucinogenic influences.
The Rose
Addendum - ah, the mystery is solved. This film is directed by the same moron who did 300, one of the worst movies I have ever had to endure.TR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)